class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Disorder and Social Control ] .subtitle[ ## Experimental evidence on prosocial and antisocial decision making ] .author[ ### Charles C. Lanfear
Ross L. Matsueda & Lindsey R. Beach ] --- class: inverse, cct # Broken Windows --- # Broken Windows [Wilson & Kelling (1982)](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/) describe a system where community disorder (1) increases crime by signalling low social control to offenders and (2) decreases actual social control by reducing willingness to use public spaces. -- .pull-left-60[  ] .pull-right-40[ * A: Disorder signals low guardianship which increases offending * B, E: Disorder and crime constrain social relations and impede control * C, D: Social control inhibits both disorder and crime ] .centernote[ *Explicit rational macro-micro model* ] --- ## Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008) Keizer et al. used multiple disorder manipulations and recorded norm violation with field experiments in Groningen, the Netherlands to test the direct micro-mechanism of broken windows. -- .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Disorder greatly increased all norm violation (A) * Strong **internal validity** from experimental design * Weak **external validity**: Single sites in one city, small-scale, minor norm violations * Criticism: [Wicherts & Bakker (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502); [Lanfear (2017)](http://hdl.handle.net/1773/40974) ] .centernote[ *Highly cited evidence for causal effect of disorder on crime* ] --- # Collective Efficacy [Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1086/210356) contend that disorder and crime are both manifestations of low collective efficacy—the community's capacity for informal social control. -- .pull-left-60[  ] .pull-right-40[ * A: Disorder has no direct impact on crime * C, D: Disorder and crime are products of low collective efficacy—social control—which is exogenous (B, E) ] .centernote[ *Implicit rational choice macro-micro model* ] --- ## Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) Simultaneous equations of crime, disorder, and collective efficacy in Chicago neighborhoods, using survey-measured collective efficacy and objectives measure of disorder: Video of block faces coded by researchers. -- .pull-left[  .small[<sup>*</sup> Effect found only for robbery.] ] .pull-right[ * No disorder effect on crime (A) conditional on collective efficacy * Control for crime impact on collective efficacy (E), but assume no disorder feedback (B) * Strong **external validity**: *Actual* disorder, crime, neighbourhoods * Weak **internal validity**: Cross-sectional, covariate adjustment ] .centernote[ *Implicit macro-micro model* ] --- # Key Questions --- class: inverse, sncp # The Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Project --- ## The Experiments Over 2000 person-hours of **field experiments**, conducted over four years, embedded in representative Seattle neighbourhoods with rich **ecological survey data** (2002-2003 SNCS) * Balance experimental and observational strengths and weaknesses * Maximize internal and external validity -- ‍1. **Mailbox Experiment** (today) * Effect of disorder on crime and prosocial behavior (replicate Keizer) * Association between collective efficacy and crime and prosocial behavior ‍2. **Littering Intervention**: (today) * Effect of disorder on sanctioning behavior * Association between collective efficacy and sanctioning behavior -- ‍3. **Lost Letter**: Collective efficacy → prosocial behaviour ‍4. **Litter Clean-Up**: Collective efficacy → disorder removal --- <br> <br>  --- # Number of Trials .image-full-width[  ] --- .image-full-height[  ] --- class: inverse, mailbox # The Mailbox Experiment --- # Mailbox: Method .pull-left[ .image-75[  ] ] * A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter --- count: false # Mailbox: Method .pull-left[ .image-75[  ] ] * A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter * Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder -- * Observe whether participants mail, steal, or ignore envelope -- * Record gender, age, race, and grouping of participants to adjust for differences between and interference within trials -- * Record if disorder present *prior to trial* to test asymmetry -- * 368 trials with 3,481 participants in 20 Seattle census tracts --- # Mailbox: Model Objective: Causal test of direct effect of disorder on crime (A). <br> <br> .image-63[  ] --- # Mailbox: Model Our Experiment: Causal tests of direct effects of disorder on crime and prosocial behavior—and associations with collective efficacy <br> .image-75[  ] --- # Mailbox: Results <table style="width:70%"> <tr> <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Mailbox: Participant Actions</td> </tr> <tr> <th>Condition</th> <th>Walk-By</th> <th>Mail</th> <th>Theft</th> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Control</td> <td>1496</td> <td>176</td> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>88.0%</td> <td><strong>10.4%</strong></td> <td><strong>1.6%</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td> <td>1617</td> <td>136</td> <td>28</td> </tr> <tr> <td>90.8%</td> <td><strong>7.6%</strong></td> <td><strong>1.6%</strong></td> </tr> </table> * Disorder has **no impact on theft**—Keizer et al. (2008) fails replication -- * Disorder **reduces mailing** -- * Collective efficacy predicts less **theft** and **prior disorder** * Consistent with ecological studies and suggests external validity -- * **Prior disorder** predicts thefts, but no difference in treatment effect * Association persists once disorder removed—not local disorder effect --- class: inverse, littering # The Littering Intervention --- ## Littering Intervention: Method A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters in view of passersby near a trash can with a no-littering sign.<sup>1</sup> .footnote[[1] Or perhaps hits their dog with garbage. <br> ] -- Researchers record if confederate is sanctioned—**risky prosocial behavior**—or litter disposed of by participant—**low-risk prosocial behavior**. *Content* of sanction is also recorded. -- Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder. -- Replicated with three confederates of varying gender and race to manipulate interpersonal context which may influence evaluations of risk:<sup>2</sup> * Black Man * White Man * White Woman .footnote[[2] Gender and race also relate to normative expectations.] -- We conducted 576 trials in 12 Seattle census tracts. ??? 8 trials per person per condition in 12 tracts. 8 x 2 x 3 x 12 --- # Littering Intervention: Model .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Test of direct effect of disorder on sanctioning (B). ] --- count: false # Littering Intervention: Model .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Test of direct effect of disorder on sanctioning (B). * Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring. ] --- count:false # Littering Intervention: Model .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Test of direct effect of disorder on sanctioning (B). * Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring. * Test effect of interpersonal context of norm violation on sanctioning (L). ] --- count:false # Littering Intervention: Model .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Test of direct effect of disorder on sanctioning (B). * Norm-Violation is *fixed*—all relationships are conditional on the offense occurring. * Test effect of interpersonal context of norm violation on sanctioning (L). * Captures association between collective efficacy and sanctioning (M). ] --- # Results: Sanctions <table style="width:70%"> <tr> <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Litter Intervention: Sanctions</td> </tr> <tr> <th><br>Condition</th> <th>Black<br>Man</th> <th>White<br>Man</th> <th>White<br>Woman</th> <th><br>All</th> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Control</td> <td>2</td> <td>2</td> <td>9</td> <td>13</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>.021</strong></td> <td><strong>.021</strong></td> <td><strong>.103</strong></td> <td>.045</td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td> <td>1</td> <td>8</td> <td>4</td> <td>13</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>.011</strong></td> <td><strong>.091</strong></td> <td><strong>.043</strong></td> <td>.045</td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Both</td> <td>3</td> <td>10</td> <td>13</td> <td>26</td> </tr> <tr> <td>.016</td> <td>.052</td> <td>.068</td> <td>.045</td> </tr> </table> Key Findings: * No *unconditional* effect of disorder on sanctions—a risky prosocial action. * Disorder *interacts* with confederate race/gender. -- * Collective efficacy and letter returns did not predict sanctioning (M). -- * Sanctioning varies widely by confederate in both *quantity* and *content*. * White woman: *Confrontational* sanctions usually from men. * Black man: *Non-confrontational* sanctions only from women. * White man: *Non-confrontational* sanctions, men and women. ??? One of the big takeaways here is that sanctioning for littering is just really quite rare. As a result, our test here is underpowered. LB: 11/13 from men TP: 3 sanctions from women CL; 6/10 sanctions from men --- # Results: Throwing Away <table style="width:70%"> <tr> <td style="font-size:115%" colspan="5">Litter Intervention: Throw-Aways</td> </tr> <tr> <th><br>Condition</th> <th>Black<br>Male</th> <th>White<br>Male</th> <th>White<br>Female</th> <th><br>All</th> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Control</td> <td>3</td> <td>7</td> <td>7</td> <td>17</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>.032</strong></td> <td>.079</td> <td>.079</td> <td><strong>.059</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Treatment</td> <td>3</td> <td>3</td> <td>4</td> <td>10</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>.032</strong></td> <td>.032</td> <td>.043</td> <td><strong>.035</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="2">Both</td> <td>6</td> <td>10</td> <td>11</td> <td>27</td> </tr> <tr> <td>.032</td> <td>.052</td> <td>.057</td> <td>.047</td> </tr> </table> We also evaluated if our interventions impacted throwing away the dropped litter—a low risk, non-confrontational prosocial action. -- Key Findings: * Disorder treatment reduces throwing away. * This effect also conditional on confederate characteristics. -- * Collective efficacy and letter returns do not predict throwing away. --- # Other Experiment Results * Collective efficacy strongly predicts lost letter returns * Contextual effects (letter addressee) exert strong effects * i.e., people don't like nazis -- * Collectively efficacious neighbourhoods really hate my litter cameras * Suggests large differences in clean-up speed -- * Mailbox experiment replicated in Oxford in Summer 2022 * No effect on theft (108 trials, 3808 participants) * High walk-by rate, likely due to heavier foot traffic -- .centernote[*We're still working on the big picture*] --- class: inverse # Q&A and Acknowledgements Our experimental findings are the result of over 2000 person-hours of field work over four summers. This was made possible by the participation of graduate student researchers, grant funding, and UW institutional resources. .pull-left[ ### Researchers Anquinette Barry Chris Hess John Leverso Kate O'Neill Terrence Pope ] .pull-right[ ### Funding National Science Foundation UW Royalty Research Fund ### Support UW Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences UW Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology ] --- count: false class: inverse # Appendix --- count:false # Mailbox Models .center[Two Mailbox Multinomial Models] | | Mail | Theft | Mail | Theft | |:------------------:|:--------:|:--------:|:---------:|:--------:| | (Intercept) | **-2.053** | 0.332 | **-1.467** | -1.437 | | | *(0.538)* | *(1.170)* | *(0.579)* | *(1.329)* | | Treatment | **-0.275** | -0.081 |**-0.263** | -0.098 | | | *(0.118)* | *(0.261)* | *(0.119)* | *(0.263)* | | Coll. Eff. | 0.265 | **-1.206** | 0.171 | -0.804 | | | *(0.173)* | *(0.396)* | *(0.181)* | *(0.424)* | | Walk-by Rate | **-0.564** | -**0.535** | **-0.534** | **-0.429** | | | *(0.063)* | *(0.132)* | *(0.064)* | *(0.133)* | | Male | | | -0.094 | **0.880** | | | | | *(0.117)* | *(0.296)* | | Non-White | | | **-0.459** | 0.397 | | | | | *(0.144)* | *(0.272)* | | In Group | | | **-0.876** | **-1.302** | | | | | *(0.161)* | *(0.475)* | --- count:false class:inverse # The Lost Letter --- count:false # Lost Letter: Method Replication of [Milgram et al. (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344) and [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html). -- 2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.<sup>1</sup> .footnote[[1] Drops conducted on foot in center city and by car in most tracts—at the cost of one car accident. ] -- 24 letters—8 per addressee—were dropped in each census tract: * Charles F. Landers Sr. (Personal) * Friends of Black Lives Matter (BLM) * American Neo-Nazi Party (Nazi) -- Mailed letters were received at a PO Box monitored by the research team. ??? We still have every single returned letter in storage. -- Letters were geocoded to drop locations and featured a small printed ID number for tracking. --- count:false # Lost Letter: Model .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Returning a lost letter is a low-risk pro-social intervention highly correlated with collective efficacy (G)<sup>1</sup>. ] .footnote[ [1] See [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html) and [Milgram, Mann, and Harter (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344). <br> <br> <br> ] --- count:false # Lost Letter: Model .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ * Returning a lost letter is a low-risk pro-social intervention highly correlated with collective efficacy (G)<sup>1</sup>. * This may be used to update the 2002-2003 SNCS collective efficacy measures which may have shifted over time.<sup>2</sup> ] .footnote[ [1] See [Sampson (2012)](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html) and [Milgram, Mann, and Harter (1965)](https://doi.org/10.1086/267344). [2] Note however that collective efficacy is persistent ([Sampson 2012](https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html)). ] --- count:false # Lost Letter: Results | *Study* (Letter Address) | *Return Rate* | `\(\rho(CE)\)` |:--------------------------------|--------|------------| |*Milgram et al. (1965)*<sup>1</sup> | | | | Medical Research Associates | 70% | -- | | Friends of the Community Party | 70% | -- | | Friends of the Nazi Party | 25% | -- | |*Sampson (2012)*<sup>2</sup> | 33% | .41 | |*SNCP*<sup>3</sup> | | | | Charles F. Landers Sr. | 79% | .35 | | Friends of Black Lives Matter | 71% | .32 | | American Neo-Nazi Party | 24% | .03 | * Our results closely mimic Milgram et al. (1965). * Collective efficacy does not predict Neo-Nazi letter returns. .footnote[ [1] New Haven, CT<br> [2] Chicago, IL<br> [3] Seattle, WA ] --- count:false ## .blue[Mailed] and .rust[Unmailed] Letters <img src="data:image/png;base64,#slides_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-4-1.svg" style='padding:0px' /> --- count:false # Updating Collective Efficacy .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ Empirical estimates: * Sampson (2012) found `\(A = .73\)` over 7 years. * Assume `\(A = .50\)` over 12 years. * We find `\(\rho(Z_1Y) = .35\)` for personal letters. ] --- count:false # Updating Collective Efficacy .pull-left[  ] .pull-right[ Empirical estimates: * Sampson (2012) found `\(A = .73\)` over 7 years. * Assume `\(A = .50\)` over 12 years. * We find `\(\rho(Z_1Y) = .35\)` for personal letters. Extrapolation: * `\(\rho(Z_1Y) = A*B\)` * `\(.35 = .50 * B\)` * `\(B = .70\)` ] -- Under some assumptions, * Collective efficacy is highly correlated with letter returns. * We have an updated measure of collective efficacy. --- count:false <img src="data:image/png;base64,#slides_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-5-1.svg" style='padding:0px' /> --- count:false class: inverse # The Litter Clean-Up --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Method .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] .pull-right[ * A variety of trash is dropped on a sidewalk near a magazine rack. ] --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Method .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] .pull-right[ * A variety of trash is dropped on a sidewalk near a magazine rack. * A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by. ] --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Method .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] .pull-right[ * A variety of trash is dropped on a sidewalk near a magazine rack. * A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by. ] --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Method .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] .pull-right[ * A variety of trash is dropped on a sidewalk near a magazine rack. * A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by. * This permits capturing the relationship between collective efficacy and time to remove disorder. ] --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Method .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] .pull-right[ * A variety of trash is dropped on a sidewalk near a magazine rack. * A concealed camera and motion detector record when the litter is cleaned up and how many people pass by. * This permits capturing the relationship between collective efficacy and time to remove disorder. * An alternate magazine rack defaced by graffiti and stickers is swapped in to manipulate disorder. ] --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Results .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] * The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials. --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Results .pull-left[ .image-full[  ] ] * The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials. * In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore". ??? Ravenna, where I was living at the time, is a high collective efficacy, fairly affluent, residential neighborhood. -- * Two magazine racks had locks cut and were removed. -- * Thus we were unable to continue experiment *because of collective efficacy* in an affluent neighborhood. -- * In contrast, one rack was left *for an entire year* in Capitol Hill without issue. --- count:false # Litter Clean-Up: Alternative We supposed the speed of return of lost letters was correlated with clean-up time of trash. As a pilot, in selected tracts, 24 pieces of litter were dropped in the same locations as lost letters and then checked three times over the course of a day. Neither timing nor a binary measure of clean-up were found to be associated with either lost letter returns or overall collective efficacy.